Blog

Faith seems to be something people possess independant of facts, science, and any sort of valid evidence.

So are there any facts that support faith?

Some ‘believers’ try to argue that some ‘real world’ considerations support their belief. For example they would argue that the efficacy of prayer and the existence of miracles justify their belief. But the reality is that prayer does not work, proven by studies, and I have yet to come across any reasonable support and argument for any miracle. Believe it if you want, but don’t pretend it has a factual basis.

In reverse, faith leads people to claim ‘facts’ in the real world. What’s intersting is that they then pervert logic to try to fit their faith drven ‘facts’.

‘Creation’ – in seven days, 6000 years ago, is one product of ‘faith’. If you challenge the ‘seven days’ – they start saying that ‘a day’ can be longer than ’24 hours’. Likewise the date of ‘Adam and Eve’ could be much earlier – but where would the dinosaurs fit, for example.

Noah’s flood is another religious claim – I asked how Noah collected kangaroos, and got told it happened when ‘continental drift’ linked Australia and Asia. Presumably to get Capybaras, Latin America was linked to Africa?? And when the Bible (the immutable word of God) said the Earth was flooded to the tops of the mountains, during the Flood – I said Everest was quite high, and got told that of course it’s height has varied significantly over time (only the credulous would sign off the Flood, depth and timescale on this basis).

Then of course God needed the ‘Virgin Mary’ and the Resurrection to rationalise his son coming to Earth, and living and dying and so on. Again. how likely are these stories for real?

So, the problem with Faith is that it results in people making ridiculous claims.

And, actually, it gets worse. Once you sign up to ‘Your Faith’, you actually have to believe and claim that it is the ‘One True Faith’.

Obviously more people believe other things, that other Gods are ‘the True God’. So you are out-numbered. And your ‘minority view’ just happens to be, usually, your local faith. If you had been brought up elsewhere, with the need or inclination to ‘believe’, you would amost certainly believe the faith in that other place.

Food for thought, eh?

If Trump was a better man he would have included the following points in his ceasefire proposal:

Recognition of Palestine as an independant State.

Require Israel to withdraw all Settlements from the West Bank (ie vacate them).

Require Iran to give women full and equal rights.

Require Iran to hold democratic elections.

Recognise that there is no ‘one true faith’ and that America recognises and respects all faiths.

The first two points delivers some justice to the Palestinians and this would hopfully command repect from the Arab States.

The third and fourth points would improve the lot of Iranian people, get their support, plus act as a strong example to the other States in the Region.

The fifth point would walk America back from trying to behave like ‘their God’ was the superior God, and stop America sounding like this was a religious war, akin to a crusade. This demonstration of religious tolerance would hopefully be a good example to Christians, Jews and Arabs in the Region.

Better American Presidents of recent years might aspire to a good standard of behaviour: clearly Trump is not a good man, and would not act as a role model. You’d hope one day he would look in the mirror and appreciate the horrendous ‘legacy’ he will leave behind him…..

It would seem to be self evident that the U.K. needs a successsful business base.

I read recently that much of the Left likes the idea of increasing borrowing, and funding it by printing money. That would increase the demand for ‘real’ goods, which without an increase in production will lead to heavy inflation. Increasing borrowing is not only difficult (it will lead to higher interest rates as our creditworthyness decreases), but it is patently obvious (at least to me) that we shouldn’t be living beyond our means

A lot of the left is into ‘tax and spend’ – they like the idea of ‘the state’ spending money, and funding their pet schemes, such as yet more money on welfare. A pleasant indulgence. They seem less interested in spending money on real priorities, like defence.

The real problem is the ‘tax’ component. There seems to be an attitude that the private sector is a ‘cash cow’ – you can just take more and more of ‘their money’ and spend it on ‘us’. Maybe it is more than the ‘cash cow’ concept – taking their money is maybe a punishment for being successful, a product of greed and envy.

Remember of course that much of ‘the left’ have only worked in the public and volontary sector, plus a few that are independantly wealthy and privileged, but keep it quiet. So they know little about business and have little interest.

If you look at the ‘far right’ I am reallly not sure what is their attitude to business? I suspect they are relatively inclined to just ignore it, and focus on other issues such as immigration.

Sensible people know that we have a crisis with business. High energy costs, increased minimum wage, cheaper overseas production….

Moreover high personal tax rates disincentivises those that we need to work hard creating and expanding businesses.

We lack economic resilience, we imagined that ‘globalisation’ would mean that manufactured products (and food) would always be available from around the world, and at cheap prices.

Recent international events make it clear that we need to be closer to self sufficient in many sectors. Being too dependant on the U.S. is not wise (eg the F35 plane). We need to go it alone on many things, but then also collaborate with what are likely to be our close long term allies – we share a culture with Western European coutries, I think we should reinforce our links to Eastern European countries (good people in Poland and Ukraine for example), and the Old Commonwealth countries and some of the New Commonwealth (eg Canada, Australia, New Zealand).

We need to strengthen our prescence in many sectors, defence, marine engineering and ship building, steel production and so on.

It seems to me that the only Party that has any taste for this is the Conservative Party. Traditionally they have run the economy well, for Labour to then abuse it…..

In part we need to ‘free up’ the private sector, the business sector. Go for ‘small government’, reduce the state interference in business whereever possible – reduce the rules and regulations.

Civil servants create jobs, roles and committees for civil servants. They then create policies and procedures – many of which are laborious but essentially ‘tick in the box’ exercises for businesses.

A friend wanted to open a shop – needed an ‘approval’ visit from a local authority – got told the first appointment available was in a month’s time. He’d been working his socks off to get the place open, needed the incoming cash flow, but just had to sit on his hands for a month…..

All the political parties should reflect on the fact that it is business that creates wealth, that enables the funding of social policies – we are close to killing this goose that creates the golden eggs…….

This is a repeat of previouly argued cases but it warrants repetition.

It would seem that there can be many Gods, just one God, or no Gods.

The ‘many Gods’ argument would include all types of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, along with Hindu, Bhuddist and other faiths.

This would suggest that either there are ‘many Heavens’ or that all the faiths occupy and share ‘one Heaven’.

Either answer contradicts the idea of most faiths that theirs is ‘the one true faith. Could even different Christian faiths share one Heaven – with their different beliefs for example about equality for women or homosexuality? Could a Catholic Priest and a Gay Paster be happy neighbours in Heaven – would East African Church members live alongside gay men in Heaven? Could they even agree whether the shops should open on Sundays?

And of course the idea of Jews, Muslims and Christians co-existing in one heaven seems unlikely.

The alternative of many Gods in many Heavens seems unworkable. Are they located side by side? And would they co-exist peacably – or would there be tensions and religious wars between Heavens?

So, only one God seems more likely.

It seems likely that each faith would argue that they are the only true faith, and only they will go to the one God (theirs) in their Heaven.

Western people seem to have an arrogance and think that their religion(s) would rank first amongst religions.

People need to appreicate that each faith tends to be believe that only they are right. And hence at least all but one are wrong…….

People in my local church ‘believe’ – and seem to think that their faith is the one true faith, more valid than all the others. Hence they are inclined to brainwash their children in that belief, and want to do missionary work to convert others to the only valid faith.

Some fudge the issue, as if it is not only their church that is right, but all Christianity. But Mormons have different beliefs to the Amish, to Catholics, to Jehovah Witnesses, and so on. In truth they have different belief (which is why there are separate religions within Christianity).

And Heaven forbid anyone arguing that maybe, just maybe, the one true faith exists outside Christianity.

This is also the moment to be clear about ‘faith’ and ‘belief’. There is of course no concrete evidence that any God exists. Certainly not ‘only your God’

You happen to believe what you believe, but you should accept it is only your personal belief. It is possible for this to do no harm, although the common conflicts between different faiths makes this questionable.

As such you should accept that it is only your faith, and many many others around the world believe other things, with equal validity.

And you should recognise the limits of your (non-scientific) beliefs. For example there is no evidence that prayer works, nor that miracles truly happen.

The third option is that there is no God. If you take this as a hypothesis, there would be no evidence that you were wrong.

This option may seem negative, but you can still argue that ‘goodness’ exists, and that we should all behave like good neighbours, using the ‘good samaritan’ as an example to live by.

And, of course, this would stop the possibility of there being relgious wars, like at this moment what Trump and Hegseth

seem to be pursuing by way of a ‘crusade’ against Iran.

The Bible says that St Peter is at the ‘Gate of Heaven’ and decides who gets into Heaven.

If there are a Billion Christians – and just the one Heaven for all Christians – roughly ten million will die each year. That’s around 30,000 per day. That equates to about 3,000 arrivals per working hour – and with 3,600 seconds per hour, that comes to one per second.

Does St Peter just make a snap decision on each candidate? Or do they need C.V.s, references, testimonials? Clearly St Peter would have to work very fast…. And would there be an Appeals system – for those wrongly rejected (maybe mistaken identity in all the rush) – or for those wrongly admitted, where people recognise somebody who should not have been admitted (paedophiles and so on).

Clearly this does not make sense.

The implication is that the absolute word of God – as in the Bible – needs to be interpreted and updated. So how do you decide whether to take any of it literally, and which parts are ‘valid’. Think about views on Homosexuality, Creation, the ‘Virgin Birth’.

So it would the Bible is something of a ‘pick and mix’ – different views will be selcted, and none are absolute. So why believe what your Pastor tells you – others will say something different, with equal validity……

More needs to be done to help integrate immigrants in the UK – there is a parallel with the Northern European ‘colonials’ in Spain, where I now live.

Some years ago the UK opted for ‘multi-culturalism’ – it was thought to be a good idea to help immigrants retain their ‘culture’. But this was at the cost of reducing the drive to help them integrate. When immigration was in low numbers maybe this was OK, but this is no longer the case.

It now feels that we are in a situation where many immigrants are not ‘integrating’.

As a nation, we need everyone living here to share our values, the commitment to democracy, religious tolerance, equality for women. A unified nation, where all residents would commit to fight to defend the nation.

Those quick off the mark will note that more needs to be done to get our ‘original’ nationals signed up to these values.

However, focussing on immigrants, we need them to learn our language (men and women alike). They need to learn about our culture and history. They need to be informed of our values, and sign up to them. They need to commit to volonteer to fight for our country if need be.

You will be noting there is a paralllel with those choosing to live in Spain, speak the language, be willing to volonteer to fight for Spain. No country needs people who are not aligned to the country’s values.

More negatively, the UK should make it clear what is not acceptable. Treating women as second class (and all religions need to be challenged on this). Forced ‘Arranged marriages’ are not acceptable. Nor are Honour killings. Nor Cousin Marriage. Nor requiring women to dress ‘modestly’ when their men do not (ie ban full face coverings). English law needs to apply, for example to divorce (not Sharia law). Animals need to be humanely killed (not Helal).

Both men and women need to sign up to our values, and likewise commit to volonteering to fight for our nation if need be.

In our past many Commonwealth people, in the second world war, fought with us, when it was not directly their battle. We cannot have people living here who would not do the same.

Standards of living in the UK have been flat for a number of years, and we are falling behind the United States.

You can access money by borrowing, but we have run out of road on that front.

So what we need is the creation of new wealth – the monet with which to do good things.

The ‘Left’ do not seem to be interested in wealth creation. It’s as if being successful in financial terms is not a good thing. They live the politics of envy. Along with dis-interest – they seem to think that all you need to do is to ‘tax the rich’ and thereby fund their ‘tax and spend’ thinking.

The ‘very rich’ may or may not be a legitimate target – but generally they are potentialy quite mobile, If things continue as they are, they will go and live abroad, either permanently or until a better government gets elected here.

The ‘Left’ seem to think that you can just increase taxes on businesses and employers without consequnce. The actual result is lack of growth – who would invest in the UK at present – the business environment is extremely tough and unfriendly.

We ahve had the consequences of Brixit, Covid, increasedfood costs due to the Ukraine war, and now the government assualt on business – national insurance costs, minimum wage costs, and they are complicit in utility cost increases (Mad Ed Millibrand and his ideas on net zero for example).

We need to change the attitude to business – probably the only real answer is a Conservative governmnet if they can sort themselves out.

Each sector needs support. And the creation of an environemnt in which people like the idea of investing in business.

Take agriculture. we need to facilitate the simple ‘growing of things’. It may be nice to think about conservation – heges, ditches, bird and insects – but we need success in teh middle of each field. So cut the nonsense bureaucracy. Scale back animal welfare (sadly). LIkewise don’t ban effective weedkillers and insecticides. Or do you want to starve when World War 3 happpens.

Take cars. Why kill the petrol car industry in this country? Other countries are slipping the deadlines. And many people don’t want electric cars (for example, you can’t home charge them if you live in a terraced house or flat).

Take hospitality. And the High Streets. Cut business rates. Reduce VAT. Remove city centre car parking fees. Give them a chance to survive and even grow.

Take technology. We need to grow our ‘high tech’ sectors. The link between universities and research is crucial. So why are we allowing so many Chinses students to study here, learn our secrets, and take them back to China?

We need to recover our manufacturing base. We need steel, shipbuilding, marine engineering, tool making. We need to train people. We should have a strategy of identifying a minimum level of home production for strategic, defence linked, purposes.

Globalisation hollowed out our capacity to be independant. Should there be a war we need a degree of self sufficiency. However those new areas of production need highly skilled managers, and both freedom but also, if they are guaranteed work, very close scrutiny of efficieny, productity, profit margins.

Without wealth creation we will never increase our standard of living. Nor can we do good things with some of that new wealth.

It’s time this was recognised, and action taken

Does Trump have an Iran strategy? Probably not, and doubtless he does not care…..

You can remove some of the Iranian leaders, but how will this change things?

The Revolutionary Guards and military have control of Iranian weapons – planes, armoured vehicles, guns. And with their corruption and exploitation of power they will not give up without a fight.

The people might protest, another ‘Arab Spring’, but will they win.

The Guards and military will be fighting not only for their privileged existence.but also to avoid retribution from the people – lynching and what have you.

What is the relevance of Franco? In the Spanish civil war, he had the military and the weapons and slowly ground down the opposition. He could have won in a shorter time frame, but chose to take his time to systematically destroy his opponents. Relatively unarmed civilians had no chance.

What will probably happen in Iran is that the most senior remaining Guard and/or military General will take control. They may install a puppet religious leader. The abuse of the people will continue.

And of course because Trump did not seek out Islamic support, sunni or shia, it looks like a Christian and Jewish assault on their religion. Publically or privately Iran will have sympathisers.

And they will need only one bit of luck to kill Christians and Jews and make this look like a very poor strategy

When the ‘trans’ debate became more common, I honestly thought we were really talking mainly about ‘post op’ people (focussing for the moment on ‘male to female’). I didn’t think that the ‘pre op’ people were being included, and certainly not people with penises with no intent to ‘surgically’ transition.

I think much of the problem with debate is that many people seem to conflate these three categories.

My own view is that the ‘post op’ people warrant the most sympathy and sympathetic treatment. Clearly they have felt that they should not be in a male body. They have shown real commitment to wanting to live ‘like a women’. Clearly they do not actually change sex or gender – they are not the same as people born female. You would not say that a castrated dog is a bitch. But they have been ‘through teh fire’ and warrant some honorary female status. Should they use the ‘ladies’? I think it would probably be acceptable.

‘Pre op’ people need to be defined as those on hormone treatment, living as a ‘women’, and on the waiting list for surgery. Given that they still have male genitalia they have to be treated as still men. They need to show patience while they wait for surgery.

I think the terms ‘post op’ trans and ‘pre op’ trans are good terms for these two categories of people.

The third category I think is more problematic. I honestly had no idea that many so called ‘trans’ people actually have no intention to transition surgically. They want to be treated as women but keep their penis. They may or may not have hormone treatment, and may still live with a female partner, possibly including ‘fathering’ children.

Years ago they would have been called ‘cross dressers’. Blokes in a frock. Some would cheerfully wear lipstick with a beard. Did they really want to be women, or was there a sexual frisson from wearing women’s clothing?

Good luck to them, but they certainly should not be in a women’s toilets or changing rooms, nor in female prisons. With the latter, opting for a woman’s prison would probably end the moment it’s made clear it comes with priority for genital surgery.

Is this categorisation contentious? I guess some of the ‘pro trans’ lobby would try to argue the third category are ‘real women’ and only ‘TERFs’ would disagree. I think they would do better to concentrate on the first group, and try to give them as good a quality of life as possible…….

The UK looks as if it is in a ‘1930s’ situation – enemies at the gate – trying to keep the peace. Gutless appeasement – insufficient support for Ukraine – imagine it was London not Kiev, minus 18 centigrade, no heating, next to no electricity and water.

We need to urgently rearm. We need to be able to defend our island state, play our part in European defence, and to some extent look further afield.

I suggest the UK needs to find an additional 5% of GDP, now, to invest in defence. That money needs to be well spent, all projects to have short timescale delivery, standardised equipment from established suppliers.

Finding 5% will be difficult. Most people – the electorate – have seen, at the least, no growth in incomes for a decade. That is why they are disenchanted with the traditional political parties. They are inclined to protest vote, extreme left or right, anybody who offers hope.

So this money cannot come out of peoples pockets, in terms of tax or whatever. Business cannot stand more taxes. Hitting the ultra wealthy generates little net revenue, some avoid it, some slacken off, some leave.

We cannot borrow. We spent too much on Covid, we should have protected the vulnerable rather than borrowing to subsidise people’s pay… you reap as you sow, now there’s no money to fix the roof or anything else.

Over two or three years we can save some money – freeze pensions, freeze all benefits and restrict grounds for claims and renewals (we have been paying universal credit to people in prison hospitals for example). Apparently there are 5,000 people in the Cabinet Office, that could be halved. Reduce the number of senior ranks in the police. Have less managers than beds in the NHS. Have less Admirals than ships in the Royal Navy.

However you need things with immediate impact to save money.

Abandon all ‘net zero’ costs. Pend the green agenda.

We are building offshore windfarms with insufficient grid capacity to receive the electric on windy days. Stop electric car subsidies.

Maximise oil and gas from the north sea and elsewhere – and frack (just do it).

Stop all government spending on capital – HS2 for example.

Stop all ‘diversity’ spend. Stop all government consultancy expenditure. Stop most training costs, and all conference and taxi costs for example.

Probably stop overseas aid for a while. Stop funding research other than in maths and sciences.

Basically all public sector areas need to save around 10% of their spend.

Everyone will say it is too difficult – do we really need to do it now? Pray God it’s not needed, but the price we pay if not prepared is horrific. Probably a million UK dead soldiers somewhere……..

And being equipped to fight is a great deterrent towards bullies……..

The other material question is as to who could lead us? Starmer is a Neville Chamberlain (rabbit in the headlights).

Frightenly Nigel Farrage and ‘Boris’ spring to mind. If we can employ a foreign national team football manager, why not ask Obama for help? The best onshore option would probably be David Cameron?

We need to act, and as they say, act now…..